Blowhard's Petition for En Banc Re-Hearing of Appeal

[Famspear]

I have an emotional problem because I won't accept or adopt someone's opinion, proven to be wrong on occasion, as my own? lol How many times in the past has authority been proven wrong concerning their own laws? Here's a fine example, Galileo. The authority in that period held unanimously that he was wrong and even punished him for publicly disagreeing with them. We know he was right and they were wrong even though they all agreed along with their scholars he was wrong. I'm not saying I'm a modern day Galileo, I'm simply demonstrating that your reasoning is flawed. See "Appeal to authority" fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Sounds like you're frustrated that the wall of infallibility you've constructed for the courts has come tumbling down upon your head.

Here's the irony Famspear, this fine nation was predicated upon people ignoring and not accepting the law as directed and dictated by their government and the courts, they were assuming they were right and the government and the courts were wrong. You now want me to accept that the very thing that the colonists did was unacceptable and untenable. If that is true then we shouldn't have U.S. courts to begin with.

(bolding added).

Again, can you say "transference"?

I didn't construct a "wall of infallibility" regarding court decisions, Steve.

The rule is that the law is what the courts rule the law to be. There is a subtle distinction, a nuance, that you are not getting, here. Your use of terms like "infallibility" and "fallibility" in this context incorrectly implies that there is some "real, SteveSy law" floating around out there (see the tax protester FAQ by Daniel B. Evans) that the courts can somehow "fail" to "correctly" interpret. In your mind, SteveSy has discovered the "real" law, and the courts who have ruled against you are somehow "wrong."

It doesn't work that way.

And nothing is "tumbling down around my head." I haven't "constructed" anything that can "tumble down." I didn't set up the legal system. And the legal system works the way I have described. And there's nothing really that you can do about it, Steve.

And no, you're not "demonstrating" that my "reasoning" is "flawed." We're not talking about my "reasoning." We're talking about the rules of law. I didn't make up the rules. I and other Quatloos regulars are telling you what the rules are.

Steve, your knowledge of the legal history of this country is faulty. Your knowledge of the rules of logic is faulty. (For example, the rule that the law is what the courts rule the law to be is not the fallacy of "appeal to authority.")

Your knowledge of law is faulty.

Your understanding of yourself is faulty, Steve. Can you say "transference"?

[Cpt Banjo]

But this doesn't rule out his trying to use some other rationale to try to characterize the tax as direct (e.g., that it's not a proper "excise" or that it's really a capitation or some other harebrained notion), even though no such rationale has ever been employed by any court.

I beg to differ, there are many quotes in provided by the Supreme Court in Pollock without condemnation that show a general income tax would be require [sic] a direct tax.

You need to learn the difference between a rationale for a holding and dictum. Pollock is the only case that has ever held a federal income tax to be direct, and its rationale was to look to the source of the income. Since there is no other holding anywhere else saying a federal income tax must be apportioned because it's direct , it's obvious that Pollock's rationale is the only one out there. But if you want to consider dicta, then you can cogitate on that found in Brushaber and Stanton in which the Court characterized the income tax as being an excise by its very nature.

Stevie's position is simply that the language of the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says and that there may still be some kind of income tax that has to be apportioned. Of course, the fact that there is no legal basis for such a position isn't a problem because as we all know Stevie, and not the courts, gets to determine the law.

Yes there is a basis, the court in Brushaber proves it. They make it very clear the 16th doesn't mean what it appears to say. If we were to read it literally we would have to assume congress can lay a tax without apportionment and without uniformity, something not cognizable or permissible per the Supreme Court.

You're begging the question. That would be a possibility only if an income tax could ever be characterized as a direct tax. If, however, an income tax is by its nature an indirect tax (as dicta in the Brushaber and Stanton decisions say it is), then it will always be subject to uniformity. Consider the following dicta from Brushaber:

Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it. Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635. The whole law was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and 'would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vacations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor' ( id. p. 637),-a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress.

[/quote]

In the 92 years since Brushaber was decided, has any court ever suggested a set of circumstances under which an income tax would be direct because "to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent"? Nope. Can anyone think of any such circumstances? Well, maybe an "income tax" like this:

"There is hereby imposed a tax upon every citizen or resident of the United States equal to 100% of taxable income as does not exceed One Dollar."

Aside from such subterfuges, a genuine income tax is not a direct tax except in Stevie's own mind, where the term "excise" doesn't mean what the Supreme Court says it means.

[SteveSy]

The rule is that the law is what the courts rule the law to be. There is a subtle distinction, a nuance, that you are not getting, here. Your use of terms like "infallibility" and "fallibility" in this context incorrectly implies that there is some "real, SteveSy law" floating around out there (see the tax protester FAQ by Daniel B. Evans) that the courts can somehow "fail" to "correctly" interpret. In your mind, SteveSy has discovered the "real" law, and the courts who have ruled against you are somehow "wrong."

It doesn't work that way.

So Galileo was wrong then? I'm trying to understand your reasoning here.

And no, you're not "demonstrating" that my "reasoning" is "flawed." We're not talking about my "reasoning." We're talking about the rules of law. I didn't make up the rules. I and other Quatloos regulars are telling you what the rules are.

I know what the courts think the law is....never said I didn't. I know what will happen if you disagree with them, never said I didn't. Never claimed I had some secret wording or anything else that would allow someone to escape paying income taxes. I just don't have to accept their opinions of law as my own personal beliefs. You've stated many times that people can not have a belief that differs from the courts once they know what the court or the IRS has said, prosecutors use the same flawed reasoning. It elevates a judges opinion to that of a deity as if their opinion is infallible making it impossible to believe anything contrary. back to the topic, when you sign the jurat on a 1040 you are saying "you" believe something to be true and correct. It is possible and reasonable to believe that what you're being told maybe invalid and therefore you would have reason not to fill out a form in a way you believe to be invalid and sign it saying you believe it to be true and correct.

Steve, your knowledge of the legal history of this country is faulty. Your knowledge of the rules of logic is faulty. (For example, the rule that the law is what the courts rule the law to be is not the fallacy of "appeal to authority.")

Your knowledge of law is faulty.

Your understanding of yourself is faulty, Steve. Can you say "transference"?

I know, go ahead and say it, my momma's fat too.

[SteveSy]

Aside from such subterfuges, a genuine income tax is not a direct tax except in Stevie's own mind, where the term "excise" doesn't mean what the Supreme Court says it means.

Please quote any definition of an excise by any know dictionary or Supreme Court case that describes it in such a way as to include a tax on the earnings of the average person. I'll have my box of crickets ready.

[cynicalflyer]

So Galileo was wrong then? I'm trying to understand your reasoning here.

You are conflating laws of gravtity, physics and science (in general) to statuatory law, constitutional law, and the interpretation thereof.

Apples.
Oranges.

[Lasagna]

Christ, Steve. I can't believe you're bringing up this ancient horseshit - even you should have finally figured out this one. I'm starting to suspect that you might just be a troll - nobody could possibly still hold the 16th Amendment delusion any more, considering how many times - and for so many years - it has been patiently and exactly explained.

In case you're not, though, I'll add something to what everyone else is explaining to you.

How many times in the past has authority been proven wrong concerning their own laws? Here's a fine example, Galileo. The authority in that period held unanimously that he was wrong and even punished him for publicly disagreeing with them. We know he was right and they were wrong even though they all agreed along with their scholars he was wrong. I'm not saying I'm a modern day Galileo, I'm simply demonstrating that your reasoning is flawed. See "Appeal to authority" fallacy

THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, STEVE. Galileo was examining natural laws. Astronomy. Physics. "Laws" which are not concerned with human input. Laws which exist independent of human decisions. Laws, in short, which can be "discovered."

"Tax laws" are not the same thing. They are not out there waiting to be discovered by you. They are created by human beings, not by the Universe. YOU AREN'T GALILEO. You're being intentionally stupid, and intentionally refusing to understand what is wrong with your arguments. At least I hope it's intentional.

"Tax laws" are what the intricate combination of the legislature and the courts have held them to be. Some laws are complicated, difficult to untangle, and involve gray areas and subtle categories that require intense study and thought. That's why we have lawyers. The issue of whether a federal income tax is constiutional is not one of these. It's constitutional. There is no disagreement or incosistency out there regarding that. The fact that you believe there is is meaningless; it is not possible for you to "prove" that the tax law is unconstitutional in the same way that Galileo "proved" that the earth went around the sun. By now you really, rally should understand this; it isn't difficult.

Galileo. Jesus, man.

What you are continuing to do is to insist that your moral stand against the federal income tax - or the federal government, or whatever your problem is - is somehow backed up by federal law or the constitution. It just isn't, and you are ridiculous for continuing to insist otherwise.

If you don't believe the federal income tax should exist - if you believe it is immoral (whatever) or against the wishes of the founding fathers (it isn't; it's the specific reason they called the Constitutional Congress) or whatever other reason you have for wanting to get rid of it - why don't you just argue for repealing it? There isn't anything wrong with hating taxes. People have hated taxes since Ur was first founded. Why do you have to delude yourself about the constitution? Just because it is constitutional for the government to pass an income tax doesn't mean they have to.

[Duke2Earl]

Just consider the logic Sybil uses.... all courts have held that the income tax is constitutional and enforcable.... BUT because in a few instances, a few courts have explained their rationale in a manner that contradicts the other generally used explanation......both explanations are therefore wrong and he can come in with another totally different one which totally contradicts the conclusions of all of the courts. With logic like that, no wonder he is the smartest one there is.

[SteveSy]

What you are continuing to do is to insist that your moral stand against the federal income tax - or the federal government, or whatever your problem is - is somehow backed up by federal law or the constitution. It just isn't, and you are ridiculous for continuing to insist otherwise.

It can be discovered.....see:

Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labour, and are attended with all the inconveniences of such taxes.

- Adam Smith 1776, Smith quoted in Hilton v. U.S

Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states, and is at once easy, certain, and efficacious. All taxes on expenses or consumption are indirect taxes. A tax on carriages is of this kind, and of course is not a direct tax. Indirect taxes are circuitous modes of reaching the revenue of individuals, who generally live according to their income.

- Hylton v. United States 3 Dallas (3 U.S.) 171 (1796)

According to these opinions, a capitation tax, and taxes on land, and on property and income generally, were a direct charge, as well in the immediate as ultimate sources of contribution.

- The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4] Direct Taxes. May 6, 1794

The most generally received opinion, however, is that, by direct taxes in the Constitution, those are meant which are raised on the capital or revenue of the people; by indirect, such as are raised on their expense.

- Albert Gallatin, Sketch of the Finances of the United States (1796)

Unfortunately no quotes exist supporting a general income tax as an indirect prior to, during or shortly after the adoption of the constitution. There is no historical support whatsoever for a general income tax to be an indirect tax of any kind. No country in the world, including the one's we would have adopted the terms from, define an income tax as an indirect tax. No dictionary or Supreme Court case has ever defined an excise tax to include the earnings of the average individual. But, if you really want to believe the people trying to take your money that its supportable as an excise or indirect tax and always has been go ahead be my guest. I'll stick with something supportable.

[cynicalflyer]

I want to elaborate this really bad analogy and SteveSy's "secret law" and his "beliefs".

The laws of the physical world are entirely objective. Whether Galileo and Copernicus were locked up or not for saying the earth went around the sun or whatever authority put pressures on them to recant their beliefs had absolutely no bearing on the demonstrable fact of a heliocentric sky. One could not pass an amendment to the laws of gravity or interpret the law in such a way that it contradicts another person's (or state's or nation's) law of gravity. Moreover, if someone in the sciences were to conduct experiments, observe the results, and publish same, they would never dare claim what they published was "the law".

But that is not available here. Limiting the discourse of "the law" to mean statutes and the constitution, there is a great deal of interpretation, amendment, and change available by and for us mere mortals. "The law" does not exist in some perfect state outside us and our socio-political structure (i.e. government) to be found, discovered or measured. So with the income tax SteveSy there is no secret law out there where you can believe whatever you want because it is out there somewhere. It is here, in the courts, where your ilk lose and keep on losing because under our framework it is in the courts that the law is interpreted. Now, you can disagree with the interpretation, you can try to seek out ways to change the law, or you can keep throwing this remarkably useless hissy fits.

I must say for my continuing (albeit sadistic) amusement, please, continue with the hissy fits. You are just so funny to behold. But my better angels hope you either wise up and grow up OR have the courage to live up to your rhetoric (i.e. stop paying your taxes and get thrown into jail ala MLK or Henry David Thoreau).

[cynicalflyer]

What you are continuing to do is to insist that your moral stand against the federal income tax - or the federal government, or whatever your problem is - is somehow backed up by federal law or the constitution. It just isn't, and you are ridiculous for continuing to insist otherwise.

It can be discovered.....see:

A wholly useless bit of garbage.

To paraphrase Lasagna

Again Steve, these are items which are DEPENDENT ON HUMAN DECISIONS AND DEFINITIONS.

Contrast this with Galileo's examining of natural laws which were utterly INdependent of human input. Laws which exist independent of human decisions. Laws, in short, which can be "discovered" but by no means changed by us mere mortals.

[Famspear]

I know, go ahead and say it, my momma's fat too.

Thinkin' about momma, eh Steve?

Can you say "transference"?

I must say for my continuing (albeit sadistic) amusement, please, continue with the hissy fits. You are just so funny to behold. But my better angels hope you either wise up and grow up OR have the courage to live up to your rhetoric (i.e. stop paying your taxes and get thrown into jail ala MLK or Henry David Thoreau).

Thank goodness that SteveSy does not believe in his own nonsense strongly enough to break the law. (At least, I hope that's the case.) Good for Steve, and for his family and loved ones.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

No dictionary or Supreme Court case has ever defined an excise tax to include the earnings of the average individual.

The question, posed exactly as you have posed it, may or may not have ever been posed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has certainly, ruled, however, that the federal income tax is an excise (an indirect tax) -- and that has happened in the case of an individual whose income (including earnings in the form of compensation for the rendition of personal services) was subject to the income tax. So sorry.

Steve, you're well aware of the case law.

It's no use, Stevie.

[Cpt Banjo]

Aside from such subterfuges, a genuine income tax is not a direct tax except in Stevie's own mind, where the term "excise" doesn't mean what the Supreme Court says it means.

Please quote any definition of an excise by any know dictionary or Supreme Court case that describes it in such a way as to include a tax on the earnings of the average person. I'll have my box of crickets ready.

Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) holds that “a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned”. While the case involved the gift tax, its rationale is certainly broad enough to cover the income tax.

Fernandez v. Weiner, 326 U.S. 340 (1945) upheld the estate taxation of the entire community property of a Louisiana husband and wife. The husband’s heirs objected and claimed that only the decedent’s share should be included in his gross estate because (a) the wife already owned her share of the property, (b) there was therefore no transfer of her share on the husband’s death, so that (c) there was no basis on which to include her share in the husband’s gross estate. The Court noted that under Louisiana law in effect at the time during the joint lives of the spouses the husband had sole managerial authority over the entire community property to the exclusion of the wife. Upon his death, however, she obtained managerial rights over her share and for the first time was entitled to exclusive possession, control, and enjoyment. It was this that served as the basis for taxing her share:

Congress may tax real estate or chattels if the tax is apportioned, and without apportionment it may tax an excise upon a particular use or enjoyment of property or the shifting from one to another of any power or privilege incidental to the ownership or enjoyment of property. Bromley v. McCaughn, supra; Burnet v. Wells, 289 U.S. 670, 678 , 53 S.Ct. 761, 764; cf. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 267 , 268 S., 53 S.Ct. 345, 349, 350, 87 A.L.R. 1191; Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U.S. 577, 582 , 57 S.Ct. 524, 526. The power to tax the whole necessarily embraces the power to tax any of its incidents or the use or enjoyment of them. If the property itself may constitutionally be taxed, obviously it is competent to tax the use of it, Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171; Billings v. United States, 232 U.S. 261 , 34 S.Ct. 421, or the sale of it, Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509 , 19 S.Ct. 522; Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363 , 24 S.Ct. 305, or the gift of it, Bromley v. McCaughn, supra. It may tax the exercise, non-exercise, or relinquishment of a power of disposition of property, where other important indicia of ownership are lacking. Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 276 U.S. 260 , 48 S.Ct. 225, 72 L.Ed 565; Chase National Bank of City of New York v. United States, 278 U.S. 327 , 49 S.Ct. 126, 63 A.L.R. 388; Estate of Rogers v. Commissioner, 320 U.S. 410 , 64 S.Ct. 172; cf. Graves v. Schmidlapp, 315 U.S. 657 , 62 S.Ct. 870, 141 A.L.R. 948 with 811(d)(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 811(d)(f), 26 U.S.C. A.Int.Rev.Code, 811(d, f).

If the gift of property may be taxed we cannot say that there is any want of constitutional power to tax the receipt of it, whether as the result of inheritance, Stebbins v. Riley, 268 U.S. 137 , 45 S.Ct. 424, 44 A.L.R. 1454, or otherwise, whatever name may be given to the tax, and even though the right to receive it, as distinguished from its actual receipt and possession at a future date, antedated the statute. Receipt in possession and enjoyment is as much a taxable occasion within the reach of the federal taxing power as the enjoyment of any other incident of property.

The conclusion is inescapable that an excise may be levied upon the mere receipt of income. Otherwise, one would have to argue that while a gratuitous transfer of property can be taxed, and while a sale of property can be taxed, somehow a transfer of property in exchange for personal services can't be (how's that again?).

[Famspear]

From the United States Supreme Court:

The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error [i.e., the appellant, William Springer] [ . . .] is a direct tax [ . . .]

[. . . ]

The question, what is a direct tax, is one exclusively in American jurisprudence. The text-writers of the country are in entire accord upon the subject.

[ . . . ] Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains [i.e., the federal income tax on the income of William Springer] is within the category of an excise or duty.

--Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881).

[SteveSy]

From the United States Supreme Court:

The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error [i.e., the appellant, William Springer] [ . . .] is a direct tax [ . . .]

[. . . ]

The question, what is a direct tax, is one exclusively in American jurisprudence. The text-writers of the country are in entire accord upon the subject.

[ . . . ] Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains [i.e., the federal income tax on the income of William Springer] is within the category of an excise or duty.

--Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881).

Now all you have to do is explain how the court in Pollock could have ruled they way they did and still be consistent with what you think the court said in Springer. As far as I see it, either Pollock overruled Springer or the court was referring to Springers income only and not taxes on the revenue of individuals in general. In fact I believe its the later because the court in Pollock specifically addressed the Springer case and determined where his income came from. If that were not the case Springer would be controlling for all taxes relating to income and only "capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate" would be direct end of story. Now if you claim that the Pollock court found that the income tax was in substance a tax on real estate then certainly a tax relating to the wages of labor would be a tax on people, capitation tax or head tax being synonymous, which we all agree requires a direct tax and thus overruled Springer.

[SteveSy]

I know, go ahead and say it, my momma's fat too.

Thinkin' about momma, eh Steve?

Can you say "transference"?

I must say for my continuing (albeit sadistic) amusement, please, continue with the hissy fits. You are just so funny to behold. But my better angels hope you either wise up and grow up OR have the courage to live up to your rhetoric (i.e. stop paying your taxes and get thrown into jail ala MLK or Henry David Thoreau).

Thank goodness that SteveSy does not believe in his own nonsense strongly enough to break the law. (At least, I hope that's the case.) Good for Steve, and for his family and loved ones.

I believe what I say, doesn't mean I don't realize the consequences of defying the man with the big stick. Unlike a lot of TP's I don't believe in secret phrases or hidden justice waiting to be found and used to escape the man with the stick if only you say the right thing.

The problem with TPs of that sort is that if the government is corrupt enough to bilk trillions of dollars from the uneducated public they would certainly be corrupt enough to ignore the secret phrases or ways to file also. Making it illogical to assume anything like that would work in the first place.

[Quixote]

So forget Springer. The Brushaber Court said that all income taxes are indirect taxes. Steve knows that, he just chooses to ignore it.

[SteveSy]

So forget Springer. The Brushaber Court said that all income taxes are indirect taxes. Steve knows that, he just chooses to ignore it.

lol

[Quixote]

I believe what I say, ...

Nonsense. If you believed what you said, you'd try to defend it with a real argument instead of trolling with that BS about Galileo. You would also find one story and stick with it. You don't think the 16th amendment means what it says, ostensibly because the courts say so. But you also don't believe what the courts say, because they could be wrong. Most of us have seen posts in which your position changed from the first paragraph to the last. But keep trolling, Steve. Your posts are usually good for a laugh.

[Quixote]

So forget Springer. The Brushaber Court said that all income taxes are indirect taxes. Steve knows that, he just chooses to ignore it.

lol

QED